baltimorespokes

by Steve Vaccaro, Streets Blog
In the aftermath of a crash, we inevitably ask: How can a dangerous driver be kept off the road? It seems that the entire automobile transportation regime is aimed at keeping the driver behind the wheel. Absent impairment or flight from the scene of the crash, police quickly conclude that “no criminality is suspected.” The name of the responsible driver may be carefully guarded by police, even when the name of the victim or selective details are not. Government compels the insurance market to continue insuring the responsible driver, even if the market would consider the driver too risky to insure. The under-resourced legal system and insurance industry neglect and obstruct crash litigation, pressuring victims to simply accept whatever insurance is available without holding the driver personally responsible.
But it wasn’t always that way.
Before the advent of compulsory auto insurance laws in the 1950s, New York and most other states had “safety responsibility” laws instead. Under these laws, drivers involved in crashes had their licenses suspended until they posted a bond or demonstrated insurance in an amount sufficient to compensate the crash victim. Based on their involvement in a crash, these drivers would also be required to maintain insurance as a condition of keeping their driving privileges.
Under New York’s safety responsibility law (codified as Section 94-b of the Vehicle and Traffic Law), the crash victim had the right to directly petition the commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for suspension of license of any driver involved in a crash causing personal injury or $25 of property damage. Absent the requisite showing of financial responsibility, the commissioner was required to suspend the license of a driver within 45 days — even if there had not been any finding of fault. At least for those drivers without insurance and financial means, this approach resulted in prompt suspension of driving privileges for drivers involved in crashes.
Though ensuring compensation of victims was clearly the primary purpose of the safety responsibility law, it also had an undeniable deterrent effect. As one New York court explained in 1942, “the penalty which § 94–b imposes for injury due to careless driving is not for the protection of the [crash victim] merely, but to enforce a public policy that irresponsible drivers shall not, with impunity, be allowed to injure their fellows.”
…
https://www.streetsblog.org/2013/03/19/driver-safety-laws-an-old-approach-thats-worth-reviving/

SPRINGFIELD, IL—With the drunk-driving fatality rate nearly tripling in Illinois in the past year, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles announced Monday it will re-examine its controversial "One For The Road" driver-relaxation promotional campaign.
"Driving a car can be an incredibly stressful experience," DMV spokesperson Dale Penn said. "That was the idea behind One For The Road—we felt it was important for motorists to loosen up a bit before getting behind the wheel."
"It does seem, though," Penn added, "that the program may have needed some fine-tuning."
According to Penn, the One For The Road program had its roots in a DMV study revealing a positive correlation between alcohol consumption and driver confidence.
"We found that people who had consumed at least four beers or two mixed drinks before getting behind the wheel were twice as likely to believe they were in no danger of getting hurt or killed," Penn said. "When operating a serious piece of machinery like a car, that’s just the kind of confidence you need."
Among the DMV study’s other findings: A majority of elderly respondents and female college freshmen reported being "more mellow" and "really tuned into the road" after just a single drink.
Launched last fall, the $3 million One For The Road campaign included talks by police officers at Illinois high schools encouraging kids to start "thinking about drinking"; a statewide drunk-driving poster contest; and a series of print and television ads featuring the slogans, "Before You Hit The Road, Hit The Sauce," and "Unwind… To Survive!"
In the time since the September 1996 launch of One For The Road, some 2,300 DUI-related fatalities have occurred in Illinois, a 275 percent increase over the previous year.
"Perhaps we need to reconsider certain aspects of the program," said Bill Gerhardt, co-creator of the program. "We need to ask ourselves, ‘What parts of this program are not working, and how can we fix them?’"
Despite the widespread criticism of One For The Road, some safety experts have expressed concern over what might happen without the program.
"If this program is cut, there are going to be countless alcoholics driving around sober, their hands shaking so bad they can’t even keep them on the wheel. It’s just not safe," said Hal Knauer, a safety advisor for the Illinois Board of Transportation. "A person like that relies on alcohol for steady nerves."
Added Glenn Sturbert, an Illinois-licensed driver-examination official: "Some of these 16-year-olds come in here so nervous that I’m afraid to get in the car with them. Now, I myself can’t give them something to take the edge off—the DMV only has a Class B liquor license—but what’s going on at home that the parental concern isn’t there?"
Penn noted that even with the program’s suspension, many brochures are available from the DMV offering information on "getting loose." "These materials are there so that no driver can ever claim ignorance as a reason for having driven in an unnecessarily tense state," he said.
One For The Road is not the only DMV program currently under fire. Also being investigated are the campaigns "Smoke Up For Safety" and "Pack First!"
https://www.theonion.com/articles/dmv-reconsidering-one-for-the-road-driver-relaxati,941/
***************************************************************************************************
[B’ Spokes: Makes about as much sense as Maryland allowing drivers to go 10 mph over the speed limit in school zones or the MVA saying our 3 foot passing law says you can still pass a cyclists anytime you cannot legally and safely pass a cyclist. Oh, and yes this is satire from the Onion.]